Liontamer

Remixers: Red Tailed Fox, Bladiator Song: Smooth Tanooki Original: A Dangerous Road Game: Super Mario RPG Good night judges (It’s night over here in Brazil), This is an “old” song, but not in the depreciative sense: it’s old like…Cheese, or wine, or Larry, are old. At least I like to think so. Anyways, it’s a collaboration between me (Red Tailed Fox) and our very own Bladiator, who was kind enough to provide some delicious piano lines (the very core of this song) to the supporting instrumentation I did. The original is “Dangerous Road”, from the Mario RPG (the first one, the one which has a bunch of cool characters we never get to see again): we decided to spin it in a pseudo bossa nova type groove. Karl is worried that Larry’s new obsession of counting seconds of source usage might prevent this from going through, and I am worried that the production rough spots might bleep too much on zircon’s radar. We have a bet on it, and we shall see. Anyways, I love you all. Caio (RTF). --------------------------------------------------- http://ocremix.org/chip/6318 - "The Road is Full of Dangers" (smr-109.spc) Man, you weren't kidding when you said I'd be busting out the stopwatch. The track was 5:06-long, so I needed at least 153 second of overt source usage for the pass. :09-:12. :16-:26, :27.25-:40, :41.75-1:01, 1:03-1:06, 1:09-1:13, 1:31-1:36, 1:37-1:43, 1:52-1:57, 1:58.75-2:12, 2:20-2:23, 2:33-2:36, 2:40-2:43, 2:44.75-2:47, 2:48-2:50, 2:54-3:01, 3:08-3:17, 3:33.5-3:36.5, 3:38.5-3:40.5, 4:59.5-5:01.5 I've got 117.5 seconds or 38.4% by that count, and I counted a lot of already very liberal stuff. Love the track, but unless I get some clarification or other parts I'm missing, I can't sign off on this one. Maybe there's something between 3:41-4:59, but most of that was comping. Will be glad to change my vote if there's source usage I'm not picking up, but the treatment of the source was already very liberal to begin with. Sorry, guys, it's nothing against this piece. It's well performed, but sounds too disconnected from the source material in the second half. NO

Hahaha! I'm not even sure if he's claiming to be the artist, but in his responses to comments, he makes it seem like he represents OCR. That's awesome.

If only everyone would stop with "OCRemix" too. :'-( On another note, we may need to add a "holiday" tag to the mixes.

It begins...again! https://www.facebook.com/TheWingless/posts/10150541019450880 , John! Yet again! Everyone tell him to use Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheWingless ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Wingless gon' be riiiiich, beyotch! http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?v=feed&story_fbid=221083936182&id=702845879 , John! Everyone tell him to use Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheWingless

Funky freshness.

I like how several Js were like "watch out, this is pretty liberal, Larry may no rikey", when the source tunes were all over this and they're just deaf. This is why it's bad for me to take time off. Great work on this; strong stuff!

This community rocks the world!

Not today, not tomorrow. But I have every OC ReMix retagged with everything. I'mma keep pushing to replace the individual mixes with my stuff, bet. Happy birthday! Side note: I've been so busy with moving and work, that I basically voted on nothing on the panel for 3+ months. First time ever in 5 years. NEVER AGAIN! I'd do an interview, but I'm not famous for e-muzak. I'm just an enabler for the community. Also, do like Pizza says and shut down the site.

Nope. "Windmill Hut" was all over this one, including several areas where it was more of a background player, and then you had the "Lost Woods" cameo. Source usage wasn't an issue on this one. Nice work on this one, Ad. YES

I don't recall holding up SoS on account of my file tagging.

I don't record them. Kroze has recorded a lot of our stuff, so we need to see if we can get his excellent footage. I did the ReMixer interviews, which Dave has.

It's because we hate you. (We actually do have a form letter already written for that; perhaps we'll start using it.)

I haven't heard the arrangement so I've got no opinion on that. But definitely don't question your judgement just because opposing votes are unanimous or gravitating toward one result. You're always allowed to be an outlier. You may wind up being the majority. It's smart to weigh the opposing POVs to see whether you were too harsh or lenient; everyone should be doing that. I'd say take some time to marinate on it.

Undeveloped, plodding, repetitive, boring, not melodious, and didn't sound much like the Frost Man Stage theme. Jeez, you'd think I was Disco Dan with that vote. Sure, there was a groove, but there wasn't much to the track beyond that. Sorry, bro, can't say I was feeling this on any level, and I've loved the source tune since way back. NO

Not a bad track, but a ton of things should be improved. The drum writing was alright for the most part, but the samples were poor and sounded too fake, undermining the energy you were going for. Learning how to get sequenced drums to sound realistic is tough, but not knowing that is signficantly holding your music back. Work on that first, and you'd be in a lot better shape. NO

I'm on the other side of the fence. This is a cool expansion, but basically sounded like a cover with modern sounds and additional ornamentation that sounded nice but didn't really distinguish this as going beyond a cover with new instruments, IMO. The overall structure and feel of the piece was way too much like the original for me to pass it. The arrangement basically loops at 2:16 & 4:34. Some structural variation would have been more interpretive. There was some dynamic contrast, but the flow was essentially verbatim with the SNES original. I enjoy the track in a vacuum, and it's a cool cover, but I definitely won't sign off on it here. I don't think this has substantial enough interpretation to stand apart from the original. NO

Clean up the soundscape a bit, keep the backing pattern fresh and evolving a little more, and see what other new ideas can be introduced with interpreting the melodic arrangement. Otherwise, I think this isn't far from passing, but needs that additional push of development and polish. Very promising stuff, so far, Aaron. Hope to hear more from you! NO (resubmit)

Not bad for a first sub, bro. You're going in the right direction as far as interpretation, but need some work at really developing a fully fleshed out piece. Upping your production skills is also needed, but focus on arrangement first. NO

Agreed, the rigid timing made more sense once other elements came in, but I still think the instrumentation, particularly the piano, sounded pretty poor quality. There was no reason to encode the file so low at 96kbps either. The vocals were decent, but were too quiet. Other than that, the instrumental side of the arrangement dragged on quickly due to the repetition. Trim some fat off or introduce more dynamic contrast with some changeups. The little new writing brought in on top of the source at 3:09 was interesting. Too bad that wasn't brought in earlier BGC pretty much offered the crits I would have said, so let's see some more work on this one and see where you can take it. NO

A little bit more energetic, but I still think this didn't full realize its potential. There was still some degree of clutter that could have been cleaned up, but the overall production was solid enough. The dynamics were improved a little bit, but the arrangement from 2:08-3:46 was definitely groove biased in a way that was too repetitive and didn't set my world on fire. But as part of an overall arrangement, I'd say the development of the piece was OK. I'm willing to say it's certainly competent. And it's interpretive and creative, so I'll say it ultimately squeaks by. Good luck with the rest of the vote, Nick. No matter which way it goes, I hope we hear more from you! YES (borderline)

Poor samples, poor, unrealistic articulations, poor balance of the instruments. The concept and time signature change were interesting, but the execution was beginner-ish. This was cover-ish, but did have some stylistic differences. Still, for a 2:10 track, there would need to be a lot more development. This sounds MIDI-ish and would be solid on VGMusic, but even then, sounding MIDI-ish doesn't mean the timing and articulations automatically sound so fake. Needs a lot of TLC, as well as deeper development of the textures and arrangement, to have a fighting chance. I don't think you should bother resubmitting this, but do keep at it as far as making music, because production skills will come with practice. NO

Not a problem. Done.

At the bottom of the UCP, for the Message Editor Interface options, change "Ehanced Interface" (WYSIWYG) to "Standard Editor."

What it would be is a tag around the URL that embeded the video. If it was the URL without those tags, it would just be a regular hyperlink.

Yep, a long, long time. [/Larry has more info than you]